The next ban… e-cigarettes

posted at 7:01 pm on April 13, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

As we all know, the government is very interested and actively engaged in stopping people from smoking cigarettes. (Insert pause here.)

Okay… now that I’ve given you all time to stop laughing, we can give a brief nod to the fact that government at all levels in the United States has virtually zero interest in stopping people from smoking. They have a vast, vested interest in looking like they disapprove of smoking, while keeping it legal and taxing the living heck out of it at every level. This leads to all manner of economic and law enforcement problems, but still manages to stack a few extra coins in their coffers and avoids the embarrassing problem of having tens of thousands of additional people suddenly out of work.

But a deal was cut at one point – more on that below – which might allow manufacturers to transition to other tobacco based products which were not smoked, This led to the e-cigarette. (Disclosure: I’ve never tried this product.) But it looks like the government wants to shut this menace down as well.

As the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is poised to issue new rules governing e-cigarettes, a new study has found some 22 potentially dangerous chemical elements in the vapor given off or inhaled.

These include many metallic particles – including 3 on the FDA’s “harmful and potentially harmful chemicals” list [lead, nickel, and chromium] – with the concentrations of 9 “higher than or equal to the corresponding concentrations in conventional cigarette smoke,” notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who has been called “the law professor who masterminded litigation against the tobacco industry.”

That’s bad news for people in the industry who thought that the government would give them a bit of running room to make such a shift, as reported by Forbes.

Several years ago, the federal government entered into a Faustian bargain with the tobacco industry — and the cigarette makers with the government. It was legislation borne of mutual antipathy.

Under the scheme, Washington brought the tobacco industry under the thumb of federal regulation. FDA now oversees everything from the way cigarettes are marketed, to the manner in which they are made. In exchange, the tobacco industry was promised a regulatory track out of their current (declining) business model…

It always seemed a naïve aspiration — that FDA would ever sanction such products – and even more uncertain that the anti-tobacco crowd would let this paradigm advance. Now, each side’s ambitions (and the law’s spirit) are being tested.

In short, the government is looking to ban – or at least heavily restrict – the use of these new e-cigarettes which deliver the drug (nicotine) without all the other harmful trash generally associated with the burning plant fiber bi-products. Social engineers the world over are already on board with this plan, including schemes at the World Health Organization to try to ban – or more likely tax heavily – it at an international level.

I’m sure there is a point to be made about any smokeless tobacco product being sold to children, but what about adults? I suppose the assumption here is that e-cigarettes might just be an unholy plan to addict non-smokers to nicotine and lure them into smoked products, but in the end that just winds up generating more tax revenue. So where is the profit motive for the government in this one?

Have any of you actually tried one of these electronic cigarettes? The practice doesn’t involve spitting like chew or wads in the cheek like other packaged products. Should the government be wading into this?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

For those of you saying that what comes out of e-cigarettes is just water, that’s untrue. It’s a mixture of nicotine and either propylene glycol (the stuff used in fog machines) or glycerin (women use it on their faces for something), depending upon which liquid type you buy.

They tested propylene glycol inhalation in the 50s when fog machines started being used and determined that breathing it has no negative effect.

Now that there’s tax money on the line though, they’ll probably change their minds and say it’s bad for you.

I guess it was an ecig that some fat woman was puffing on in the gas station. It lighted up and spewed mist that nobody wanted to get near. Most obnoxious thing ever.

That must have been BO or halitosis. Ecig vapor doesn’t have much by way of an odor. Much less than smoke does. I smoke mine at work in my cube. No-one notices. Can’t do that with tobacco.
This is very much a bunch of scaremongering crap.

this is nothing but the smoking nazi’s at it again. ecigs….”look” like cigs so the smoking nazi’s can’t stand it. It’s like a learned response see smoke ban it. I can’t wait for the smoking nazi’s to go after the pot smokers.

My idea of a ‘meaningful relationship’ is her brewing my coffee the next morning on her way out the door.

Liam on April 14, 2013 at 6:55 AM

yeah and women say its a fear of committment. I just laugh at them. We aren’t afraid, we are experienced. the only possible reason I can think of to get re-married is to have more children. Other than that I enjoy my freedom too much. I’m sure there are a couple good women left out there but I haven’t seen them. they must have migrated to a far off land.

yeah and women say its a fear of committment. I just laugh at them. We aren’t afraid, we are experienced. the only possible reason I can think of to get re-married is to have more children. Other than that I enjoy my freedom too much. I’m sure there are a couple good women left out there but I haven’t seen them. they must have migrated to a far off land.

unseen on April 14, 2013 at 7:01 AM

I don’t ‘fear’ commitment, either. Most women I have met aren’t worth it. My ex is on her third marriage now. I pity the poor bastard, at the same time I thank God she is someone else’s problem.

I sure as hell don’t want more children. My two are grown, with families of their own. Having three granddaughters, I can’t picture bringing to them a baby saying, “Say hi to your new aunt!”

think my ex is on her 4th or 5th. No grandkids yet. Son only 17 so hopefully it will be a couple more years before that. I don’t know at times I miss the pitter patter of feet in the house. Don’t miss much else about being married.

think my ex is on her 4th or 5th. No grandkids yet. Son only 17 so hopefully it will be a couple more years before that. I don’t know at times I miss the pitter patter of feet in the house. Don’t miss much else about being married.

unseen on April 14, 2013 at 7:21 AM

Cynicism, I believe, is often born of truth and experience.

My son is in his 30s (damn, but I’m old!)

I don’t regret being divorced. That’s the best thing she ever did for me.

I was a hardcore smoker for 35 years. I had tried everything to quit, with no lasting success.

Then I discovered electronic cigarettes. I haven’t had a tobacco cigarette in more than a year and I don’t miss it a bit. Virtually painless, no will power required.

Anyone looking to quit should try these. Get good quality ones, the kind you buy online, not the ones they sell in gas stations and convenience stores. E-cigarette-forum is a great resource for more information.

Have any of you actually tried one of these electronic cigarettes? The practice doesn’t involve spitting like chew or wads in the cheek like other packaged products. Should the government be wading into this?

I also use ecigs and the health hazards of them are no more than smog, caffeine, ice cream (have you seen what they put in ice cream?), etc. It is absolutely ridiculous to ban them. In the interest of health they should promote them.

But then, if you can ban consenting adults from buying 32 oz. sodas, mandate what kids must eat for lunch at school, why not ban everything that a group of people show they enjoy?

My sister, a smoker since her early teens, used e-cigarettes to eventually quit smoking altogether. They were the only thing that ever worked for her. It almost seems that the government it working at cross-purposes here… almost.

This is about the tax dollars. Plain and simple. The FDA has no data on e-cigs being harmful to the public because there isn’t any. At most, they’ve got one guy who blew out his front teeth on a homemade battery. http://www.cspnet.com/news/tobacco/articles/update-was-exploding-e-cigarette-mod
But the bottom line is that they’ve got no actual “victims”… and hence all this baloney about harmful chemicals.

And what a bunch of hypocrites too. They don’t take the tax dollars they raise off tobacco products and use them to treat tobacco-related illness. They use these dollars for whatever suits the purpose of their political agenda. Right now, that’s SCHIP, which has nothing whatsoever to do with what they assert as a higher public cost from tobacco users, a bull patties claim. Smokers actually save public dollars by dying off earlier and using less benefits. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.htm

If our entire populace quit smoking AND quit vaping all on one day, they’d just find something else to tax. They’re thieves, wielding the force of government in order to rob us.

You two sound like a couple of old harpies, kvetching about women. Just remember that the one common factor in every bad relationship you’ve ever had … is you.

I was a hardcore smoker for 35 years. I had tried everything to quit, with no lasting success.

Then I discovered electronic cigarettes.

cool breeze on April 14, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Ummm, you (and everyone else) do realize you’re still smoking, right? You’re just doing the mainlining version of it. If you’re still sucking nicotine into your system, you have not broken your addiction. You might be less obnoxious with it (smell in your clothes, second-hand smoke, butts), but you’re still “smoking”.

From how I understand it, the e-cigarettes allow a smoker to gradually lower the percentage of nicotine that is consumed. This allows them to eventually break their addiction. They are still “smoking” but on their way to becoming smoke-free. There are numerous anecdotal statements to this being the goal and occurring on this thread.

Ummm, you (and everyone else) do realize you’re still smoking, right? You’re just doing the mainlining version of it. If you’re still sucking nicotine into your system, you have not broken your addiction. You might be less obnoxious with it (smell in your clothes, second-hand smoke, butts), but you’re still “smoking”.

GWB on April 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Yes, I realize I am still a nicotine addict. Nicotine is addictive, but it is the other 200+ chemicals in burning tobacco smoke that are the main risks to your health. I am no longer inhaling those. Technically, I am not smoking (inhaling burning smoke), I am vaping (inhaling a nebulized mist).

I got my sense of smell and taste back. I got my lung power back. My home, car, hair and clothes no longer smell of smoke. Still a big win in my book.

It is all about harm reduction. If you want to be obsessive about taking no risk, go hang out with loathsome nanny state Mayor Bloomberg.

I started with e-cigs 3 years ago and had no problem giving up cigarettes. I slowly reduced the nicotine to where I now still vape but at zero nicotine level. I make my own liquid in the flavors I like (mostly fruit flavors). Trial and error I found the cheapest way to make my own and now it only costs me pennies a day to vape away. I wonder if they want to also put punitive taxes on the hardware as well as the nicotine liquids?

If nothing else that woman needs a better brand !!
Have been around many eciggs and none have been offensive as you make hers sound.
Methinks you’re pretty jaded about the subject, regardless.
Chill.

I think it is you who needs to chill as well as those that want to call anyone with a different opinion an “idiot”. Face it, part of the allure of a cigarette is drawing attention to yourself (no matter the kind of attention) and ecigs meet the attention whoring human emission aspect smokers were missing with the recent laws. And no I don’t think we need laws to keep people from annoying others with their vapors. They should want to do it on their own. But we live in the time of “I do what I want” self important rituals as they navel gaze over their “issues” that must be more important than those of others thus they can subject others to them.

Don’t need to ban them, just change the chmemical makeup of the ciggies. Plenty of other countries have these cigarettes without these ‘harmful chemicals’ in them. I’m still puzzled how the States wound up with the dodgy ones in the first place, really..

The Progressive Nazis in ND banned these as well.
Proving they are not interested in banning cigs bcs of 2nd hand smoke.

Face it, part of the allure of a cigarette is drawing attention to yourself (no matter the kind of attention) and ecigs meet the attention whoring human emission aspect smokers were missing with the recent laws.

MechanicalBill on April 14, 2013 at 5:36 PM

My husband chews tobacco, has since he was in the 5th grade, & he smokes in the Peterbuilt to stay awake when driving loads of cattle to NE & such bcs he has to drive for like 15 hours straight. And sometimes he drives loads to TX.
He says the cigs keep him awake better.
He’s not doing it to get attention.
So now what’s your opinion of people like this?

The biggest drawback to e-cigs (or e-pipes) is that it has brought back indoor smoking. Making it easier to smoke and removing much of the social stigma means that the smoker will indulge more often.
Even if these devices are safer most still contain nicotine.

Ummm, you (and everyone else) do realize you’re still smoking, right? You’re just doing the mainlining version of it. If you’re still sucking nicotine into your system, you have not broken your addiction. You might be less obnoxious with it (smell in your clothes, second-hand smoke, butts), but you’re still “smoking”.

GWB on April 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM

I love it when people who have no idea what they’re talking about chime in and tell others what it is they don’t know.

You do know that in most instances, it would take over 100 puffs off an e-cig to match the nicotine level of 1 puff off of a regular cig, right? Guess not.

Ummm… I guess you wouldn’t also know then that you can get e-liquids with no nicotine in them correct? No? Thought so.

The biggest drawback to e-cigs (or e-pipes) is that it has brought back indoor smoking. Making it easier to smoke and removing much of the social stigma means that the smoker will indulge more often.
Even if these devices are safer most still contain nicotine.

mad scientist on April 14, 2013 at 10:33 PM

And what would be the Constitutional basis for creating “social stigma”?

The biggest drawback to e-cigs (or e-pipes) is that it has brought back indoor smoking. Making it easier to smoke and removing much of the social stigma means that the smoker will indulge more often.
Even if these devices are safer most still contain nicotine.

mad scientist on April 14, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Well, time for more laws them isn’t it? People are getting around the ones we recently passed that forced people to comply with your wishes… need more laws and power for government…

Let me guess, you also call yourself “libertarian” and are for “smaller government”… right?

I mean when you’re not pushing to use the power of government to force people to comply with your desires you’re for smaller government; of course…